RAJEEV TEOTIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks i) a writ of certiorari for quashing the Recommendation of the DPC held in January, 2012 denying him promotion from the rank of Sub- Inspector / Exe. to Inspector/ Exe. and ii) a writ of mandamus to the respondents to reconvene a DPC for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion based on the guidelines laid down in Circular No.23/2009 dated 04.11.2009.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had joined Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') as a Sub- Inspector on 20.01.2003 and is posted at Ranchi since then. The case of the petitioner for promotion to the rank of Inspector/ Exe. was considered by the DPC held in January, 2011 but despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria as laid down in Circular No.23/2009 dated 04.11.2009, he was not promoted to the said post. Subsequently, not finding his name in the list of selected candidates although his batchmates were selected, the petitioner filed an application dated 23.12.2011 to the Commandant, CISF Unit, for providing him with the copies of his ACRs for the years 2006- 2008 so as to ascertain whether he was not considered for promotion because of these ACRs being below benchmark. The said request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents vide their reply dated 03.01.2012 on the premise that as per the DoP&T Guidelines dated 14.05.2009, copies of the ACRs w.e.f. 2009 only could be provided. Without the below benchmark ACRs being made available to the petitioner, his case was reconsidered for promotion by the DPC held in January, 2012 but he was again not selected by this DPC which took into consideration the revised guidelines wherein the marks for various gradings in the ACRs were considerably reduced and the petitioner's grievance is that he was put to a great disadvantage as his case for promotion was considered on the basis of revised guidelines while his batchmates got promoted on the basis of the pre-revised guidelines dated 04.11.2009 pursuant to the DPC held in the year 2011. It is also the case of the petitioner that after filing of this petition, he was provided his below benchmark ACRs for the period 2007- 2008 with the direction that he can file a representation against these adverse ACRs, if he so desires. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that providing the said below benchmark ACRs at such a belated stage is wholly meaningless as the case of the petitioner was rejected twice by the DPC held in the year 2011 and year 2012 based on the non-communicated ACRs for the period 2007 and 2008.

(3.) Addressing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Rekha Palli, the learned counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. V.S. Arora & Ors., in W.P.(C) 5042/2002 decided on 31.05.2012. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this judgment the Division Bench of this Court after placing reliance on various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also of this Court, took a view that the below benchmark ACRs which were not communicated cannot be considered by the DPC and in such a situation, the DPC has to consider the ACRs of the period other than below benchmark ACRs of the period in question.